Ethnic Inclusion and governance/Inclusion Ethnique et Gouvernance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The transition to democracy is a slow and fragile process. The development of practical and sound public policies that are applicable, acceptable, and inclusive are vital for the establishment of democratic systems. We believe that such policies should be led by citizens and supported by governments. To achieve this goal, initiatives must also overcome entrenched nativist attitudes if the are to be truly anchored in the community. The issue is how to formulate and deliver such policies that will underpin the installation of the democratic ideal and which address the contexts unique to the countries undertaking this process. A main goal of this conference, held in Winnipeg, September 27-30, 2007, was to discuss some issues related to citizen-focused initiatives. Earlier in 2007, the Democracy Council hosted a Dialogue on Canada's Approach to Democratic to discuss issues and challenges involved in the promotion of democratic development. One of the key findings of this dialogue was the importance of the participation and inclusion of citizens, particularly marginalized populations, in designing and implementing democratic processes. Our intention was to build further on this dialogue and discuss the lessons learned to date, the role of external actors in facilitating democratic reform, and the role that Canada might take internationally. This is the first time the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association (CESA)/la Societe canadienne d'etudes ethniques (SCEE) has discussed issues related to governance and ethnic and minority inclusion in a globalizing world. The theme is a bit of a departure for us as most of the research our community undertakes is centered on issues in Canada. Nevertheless, setting this theme in a global context was of pressing importance. While recognizing that size fits all approaches to governance and minority inclusion are neither desirable nor realistic, it is also demonstrably clear that no national jurisdiction in the world today is exempt from having to deal with these issues. The particular experience of inclusion and governance may, therefore, differ from region to region or country to country, but the need to look at these issues can claim a certain universality. Thus, in keeping with the conference's theme, CESA invited several speakers from the developing world who are experts on ethnic inclusion in their respective nations. While disappointed that some participants from developing nations were unable to obtain a visa prior to the conference, the Association was nonetheless pleased to have three panellists for its CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency)-sponsored plenary session who come from and/or have worked in regions where CIDA has an established interest, such as Ukraine and the former Yugoslavia. Speakers and participants alike offered their perspectives on minority inclusion and governance and were able to consider alternative models used to achieve this end. It was hoped that these views from the outside would bring our Canadian model into clearer focus and give us the understanding to enable us to develop better policy to ensure that the goal of ethnic inclusion in governance is fully achieved. Yet Canada's model of multiculturalism is not without its critics and may not necessarily fit societies. Indeed, when issues of inclusion, governance, and the role of civil society are set within the context of a globalizing world, it becomes immediately clear that cultural difference can present a significant challenge. The conference, therefore, was conceived and structured with some key questions in mind, the most salient of which came to the fore in a variety of forms and on a regular basis: How far can the Canadian experience be used as a template for the development of policy in other societies? What can Canadian policy-makers learn from the experiences of other countries? Thus not only do the differences and similarities from one national context to another demand study, but so does the particular challenge of translation of experience from one context to another. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".